Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users
to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response
is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual
response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the
browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published
online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed.
Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles.
The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being
wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our
attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not
including references and author details. We will no longer post responses
that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Mr Justice Hedley didn't "bottle it". Where parental and medical
values diverge, the law very helpfully provides a mechanism for
resolution, once either disputing party invokes the jurisdiction of the
court. His judgement, and the subsequent appeal court judgement, re-
inforces the traditional view that, where 'active' treatment is concerned,
doctors are the ultimate arbiters of patient's best interests. Perhaps the
real issue, in the context of "high-tech" neo-natal medicine is the
diffuse atmosphere of distrust that can exist between doctor and parent.
This is generated by the sneaking parental suspicion that when push comes
to shove, doctors will yield to [Q]uality of life and resource-allocation
considerations over 'caring and only caring'. What is at issue here is the
limit of care. I mean this in the moral, not justthe technological, sense.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests:
No competing interests
03 November 2005
Mark Q. Bratton
Senior Chaplain and Honorary Lecturer in Values in Medicine
Mr. Justice Hedley had a difficult task. He bottled it. The way he has left
it
means that any doctor will have to face the trauma of the process of law
if
patients or their representatives disagree with the doctor's "best
interests"
decision. Quite often, decisions in intensive care need to be made very,
very
fast. I know from experience that engaging with the legal system on a
Sunday
morning is not capable of the required speed. My best wishes to Dr. K.
Competing interests:
I have been an Intensive Care
Consultant for 23 years. Some
might consider this a competing
interest, so I declare it.
Re: Charlotte Wyatt
Mr Justice Hedley didn't "bottle it". Where parental and medical
values diverge, the law very helpfully provides a mechanism for
resolution, once either disputing party invokes the jurisdiction of the
court. His judgement, and the subsequent appeal court judgement, re-
inforces the traditional view that, where 'active' treatment is concerned,
doctors are the ultimate arbiters of patient's best interests. Perhaps the
real issue, in the context of "high-tech" neo-natal medicine is the
diffuse atmosphere of distrust that can exist between doctor and parent.
This is generated by the sneaking parental suspicion that when push comes
to shove, doctors will yield to [Q]uality of life and resource-allocation
considerations over 'caring and only caring'. What is at issue here is the
limit of care. I mean this in the moral, not justthe technological, sense.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests